After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

[Leucius Charinus]

Also, my impression of historians of the non-biblical-scholarship world is that, compared to the other texts we have, they love this kind of stuff. A lot of it is much less abstract than the more theologically oriented stuff. Especially the texts we have regarding individual acts of persecution, individual martyrs therefore, individual saints therefore, etc. While it's not quite the same as inscriptions and documentary papyri, obviously, as there is a religious aspect, and much of it was transcribed by monks instead of found in situ (which is obviously not irrelevant), a lot of it is a little closer to the mundane world than "Against Heresies" and "Church History" are.

The above suggests that I may need to explore a further category of evidence that is directly or indirectly relevant to Christian literature in the 4th and subsequent centuries. This is the literature of the monastic communities. This literature cannot be incorporated into the "orthodox" EH because it was not composed by the orthodox "Christian elite" of the 4th century. In another article I recently mentioned (The Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah) a number of these were mentioned.

the writings of the early Pachomian leaders Pachomius, Theodore, and Horsiesios, the highly prolific Shenoute, or less well-known figures such as Paul of Tamma or Stephen of Thebes.

So I actually appreciate this point. Thanks.

I was going to start with looking at some of this material, honestly! I'm genuinely surprised to see it being ruled out of bounds.

I'm not ruling anything out of bounds. I am open to any ideas and especially if it relates to whatever surviving evidence we may have related to Christian activity in the first four centuries.

I was also wanting to revisit the question of archeology, notwithstanding Carrier's remarks here.

I'm interested in any evidence related to Christianity in the first 4 centuries.

[Peter Kirby]

Also, my impression of historians of the non-biblical-scholarship world is that, compared to the other texts we have, they love this kind of stuff. A lot of it is much less abstract than the more theologically oriented stuff. Especially the texts we have regarding individual acts of persecution, individual martyrs therefore, individual saints therefore, etc. While it's not quite the same as inscriptions and documentary papyri, obviously, as there is a religious aspect, and much of it was transcribed by monks instead of found in situ (which is obviously not irrelevant), a lot of it is a little closer to the mundane world than "Against Heresies" and "Church History" are.

The above suggests that I may need to explore a further category of evidence that is directly or indirectly relevant to Christian literature in the 4th and subsequent centuries. This is the literature of the monastic communities. This literature cannot be incorporated into the "orthodox" EH because it was not composed by the orthodox "Christian elite" of the 4th century. In another article I recently mentioned (The Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah) a number of these were mentioned.

the writings of the early Pachomian leaders Pachomius, Theodore, and Horsiesios, the highly prolific Shenoute, or less well-known figures such as Paul of Tamma or Stephen of Thebes.

So I actually appreciate this point. Thanks.

Yes, of course.

I was going to start with looking at some of this material, honestly! I'm genuinely surprised to see it being ruled out of bounds.

I'm not ruling anything out of bounds. I am open to any ideas and especially if it relates to whatever surviving evidence we may have related to Christian activity in the first four centuries.

I was also wanting to revisit the question of archeology, notwithstanding Carrier's remarks here.

I'm interested in any evidence related to Christianity in the first 4 centuries.

That's good to hear. I plan to revisit this a few times, with a few different items, over a period of time, as work and other things allow.

[Secret Alias]

Let's suppose banning mountainman's theory is out of the question. What do you with someone who denies the fact that we're on planet earth in the year 2023? I am serious. There WAS Christianity before Constantine. So what do we do about someone who consistently denies reality. I am on the same page about freedom of speech. But his presence is pretty silly if not pretty depressing. Denying reality.

[mlinssen]

Let's suppose banning mountainman's theory is out of the question. What do you with someone who denies the fact that we're on planet earth in the year 2023? I am serious. There WAS Christianity before Constantine. So what do we do about someone who consistently denies reality. I am on the same page about freedom of speech. But his presence is pretty silly if not pretty depressing. Denying reality.

There was Chrestianity before Constantine, such is for sure.
I'm currently on hols in Denmark, and just visited Ribe. The oldest church of Denmark there dates to 850-ish, and it was intriguing to see the inside: modest, Protestant like, certainly nothing like Roman Catholicism with its splendour

Pete's theory in concept is not so strange: Christianity is much later than assumed. But to assert that the NT, the NHL and the FF were all fabricated at one and the same time is untenable given all the Chrestian attestations in them

What I don't understand is why you want him or his material banned

And a gentle reminder: even if something like reality exists, I doubt that there are more than a handful interacting with it. We all live inside our own bubble, define our own truths, assume our own reality. Everything we believe that we are, know, our rules, virtues, morals: it's all a figment of our own imagination

[lclapshaw]

Let's suppose banning mountainman's theory is out of the question. What do you with someone who denies the fact that we're on planet earth in the year 2023? I am serious. There WAS Christianity before Constantine. So what do we do about someone who consistently denies reality. I am on the same page about freedom of speech. But his presence is pretty silly if not pretty depressing. Denying reality.

1: What does freedom from government suppression for voicing ones opinions have to do with any of this?

2: Why do you have such a boner for Pete? Bring facts or screw off. I respect Peter in his willingness to engage Pete with factual material. It may do no good but it's way better than just assaulting Pete's character.

Get a life.

[ABuddhist]

Let's suppose banning mountainman's theory is out of the question. What do you with someone who denies the fact that we're on planet earth in the year 2023? I am serious. There WAS Christianity before Constantine. So what do we do about someone who consistently denies reality. I am on the same page about freedom of speech. But his presence is pretty silly if not pretty depressing. Denying reality.

1: What does freedom from government suppression for voicing ones opinions have to do with any of this?

2: Why do you have such a boner for Pete? Bring facts or screw off. I respect Peter in his willingness to engage Pete with factual material. It may do no good but it's way better than just assaulting Pete's character.

Get a life.

Furrthermore, Mountainman/Peter/Leucius Charinus, unlike Secret Alias, is polite, willing to consider evidence from other posters about things which he lacks knowledge, and avoids accusing other posters of having defects.

[lclapshaw]

^ upvote!

Let's ask Ben C. Smith if we should give SA the boot.

Oh, wait.......

[Peter Kirby]

There WAS Christianity before Constantine.

There was Chrestianity before Constantine

I would like to point out that this reveals a point of difference between members of the forum: what some people will put in the category of "Christianity," others will assign to a different category familiar to many or a new category distinct from what came later (if mlinssen will permit me to refer to his idea of "Chrestianity" as a reference to a different category). Categories can be very difficult to argue about because, just as there is no debating taste, there is no debating of where a category must be drawn, other than perhaps reference to existing practice. For my purposes, I intend to leave the construction of categories to the very last stage, after we have done a full diachronic survey. Only then will we be able to have a shared set of data to be able to broach the difficult and subjective topic of categories.

For this reason, if anybody wants to object that any reference I've mentioned isn't "Christianity," I have neither defined it nor claimed it is.

[mlinssen]

There WAS Christianity before Constantine.

There was Chrestianity before Constantine

I would like to point out that this reveals a point of difference between members of the forum: what some people will put in the category of "Christianity," others will assign to a different category familiar to many or a new category distinct from what came later (if mlinssen will permit me to refer to his idea of "Chrestianity" as a reference to a different category). Categories can be very difficult to argue about because, just as there is no debating taste, there is no debating of where a category must be drawn, other than perhaps reference to existing practice. For my purposes, I intend to leave the construction of categories to the very last stage, after we have done a full diachronic survey. Only then will we be able to have a shared set of data to be able to broach the difficult and subjective topic of categories.

For this reason, if anybody wants to object that any reference I've mentioned isn't "Christianity," I have neither defined it nor claimed it is.

Check, Peter. For easy reference, Chrestianity is Christianity without any and all Judaisation. Negatively expressed Judaism-isms (I'm desperately trying to be concise) are fine, that all belongs - but anything pro-Judaic is not Chrestian (and there are subtle nuances in between with for instance the parable of the wineskin and the patch that is vehemently anti-Judaic in *Ev and only gets mildly mitigated in the NT)

Yet you haven't even started to come near such a thing IMO, you're basically just dropping texts based on dates. Can't categorise anything unless it's worked through from start to finish

It's all xtian so good to go, is what I'd comment

[ABuddhist]

There WAS Christianity before Constantine.

There was Chrestianity before Constantine

I would like to point out that this reveals a point of difference between members of the forum: what some people will put in the category of "Christianity," others will assign to a different category familiar to many or a new category distinct from what came later (if mlinssen will permit me to refer to his idea of "Chrestianity" as a reference to a different category). Categories can be very difficult to argue about because, just as there is no debating taste, there is no debating of where a category must be drawn, other than perhaps reference to existing practice. For my purposes, I intend to leave the construction of categories to the very last stage, after we have done a full diachronic survey. Only then will we be able to have a shared set of data to be able to broach the difficult and subjective topic of categories.

For this reason, if anybody wants to object that any reference I've mentioned isn't "Christianity," I have neither defined it nor claimed it is.

And of course some people insist that any non-Trinitarian worship of YHWH and Jesus is not Christian, even though the claim about the Trinity only arose after initial Christianity according to reputable scholarship.